Thailand Seeks to Tackle E-commerce Disputes with New Civil Court Division

February 25, 2022

Thailand Seeks to Tackle E-commerce Disputes with New Civil Court Division

As internet availability and speeds have taken off in Thailand, more and more consumers in the country have adjusted their behavior by purchasing products through websites and online applications. However, they sometimes find that not all transactions turn out as expected. As online sales have increased, the number of disputes over these transactions has also continued to grow. Local news outlets are now reporting on the latest official response to this trend: a new division of the Civil Court designed to cope with the growing number of disputes from online transactions.

The Honorable Chief Justice Piyakul Boonperm, president of Thailand’s Supreme Court, is aiming to expand internet shoppers’ access to justice by setting up a special division to work on cases involving online transactions. The announcement of the formation of this division was published in the Government Gazette on December 20, 2021, and the Civil Court announced shortly after that it would start operating on January 27, 2022. The announcement does not affect cases filed prior to January 27, 2022, and does not revoke plaintiffs’ rights to file cases through alternative legal means.

The special division handles only disputes between buyers and sellers in an online transaction over a legal right or obligation related to consumption of goods or services in accordance with section 3(1) of the Consumer Procedural Act B.E. 2551 (2008) on what the law called “consumer cases.” This also includes bodies that can act on a consumer’s behalf by law, such as a consumer protection commission, association, or foundation approved by the Consumer Protection Commission.

Only cases that can be handled remotely through the court’s electronic system fall within the scope of this announcement—cases that cannot be completely handled online will not be taken up by the new special division. Accordingly, parties must utilize the court’s e-filing system, and all steps in the proceedings must be online, including filing the complaint, conducting hearings, participating in the mediation process, taking witness testimony and other evidence, conducting trials, and granting judgments.

The special division relies on previously available legal tools. Parties have access to the e-filing system 24 hours a day and can file documents with the court without having to be physically present at the court. Conducting proceedings through the e-filing system, which has been available since May 2017, usually speeds up the process of sending documents to the court and counterparties. Also, other procedural laws in relation to consumer laws were not changed. Thus, there is no significant impact in terms of the laws used in litigating the cases. All parties are still bound by the same set of rules as before, such as laws on evidence and other related procedural laws.

The new special division could potentially cause an increase in the number of cases litigated in the Thai courts. Nonetheless, having a new division of judges and court personnel at the Civil Court dedicated specifically to these online dispute cases should have a significant impact as well, meaning that ultimately, these types of cases are likely to be handled more swiftly than traditional ones.

Related Professionals

Suruswadee Jaimsuwan

Counsel

Thailand

+66 2056 5502

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

April 18, 2024

In-Court Arbitration in Thailand: A Tool Worth Exploring?

In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by

April 17, 2024

Navigating Document Formality Challenges in Vietnam

Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding

April 11, 2024

Litigation Funding in Thailand

Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any

April 4, 2024

Thailand’s Criminal Court Establishes Cybercrime Division

On March 18, 2024, the president of the Supreme Court of Thailand announced the establishment of a specialized Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court of Thailand. This represents a significant commitment to cybercrime within the Thai judiciary and a step forward in Thailand’s ability to investigate cybercrime. The rise in cybercrime investigations in recent years has made it increasingly difficult for Thailand’s traditional criminal courts to consider and issue enforcement orders in support of ongoing investigations in a timely manner. The new Technology Crime Division addresses this challenge. This new division has jurisdiction over cybercrime and technology-related crime, fraud or extortion using computers, and criminal offenses relating to personal data protection laws. In addition, this new division has jurisdiction over all requests from competent law enforcement officers seeking court orders under the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550, the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562, and the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562. The Technology Crime Division will have trainees and judges with expertise in technology and cybercrime—not only to facilitate expert prosecution of cybercrime but also to offer critical and time-sensitive support to law enforcement investigations of alleged cybercrime. The Technology Crime Division is not yet operational. The president of the Supreme Court is expected to announce the division’s opening date in the coming months. For more details on Thailand’s measures for dealing with cybercrime, please contact Michael Ramirez at [email protected] or Piyawat Vitooraporn at [email protected].

You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

Industries

Practices

February 25, 2022